WSP04401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. . . . . ( ( 2. That the Project is economically justified and engineeringly feasible. 3. That Colorado is obligated to see that the proposed project operation does not interfere with three major compacts to which the State of Colorado is a party, namely, the Colorado River Compact of 1922, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 and the Arkansas River Compact of 1949. He said Colorado is obligated to utilize its water supplies in a manner so as to meet its obli- ,r.tions and preserve its rights under all of these compacts. 4. That the need for imported water into the Arkansas River Basin in Cole- _-e.do is great and is necessary for domestic water supplies and supplemental :;.rrigation. He said the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project plan is designed so' that t.'1e importation of water into the Arkansas Valley will have no adverse effects 0:1 the rights of Kansas in the native waters of the Arkansas River. Rep. Stone stated that the Colorado comments on the proposed Fryingpan- Arkansas Project were being drawn with the assistance, advice and recommenda- tions of various local groups in the Valley, including the \.ater Development Association of Southeastern Colorado, and with similar cooperation from inter- ests representing the ~iestern Slope. Chairman Kramer concurred in the view- point that the Administration was concerned only with the native waters of the Arkansas River available to Colorado and Kansas, and that the Administration was not concerned with imported water nor with any of the details of local economic problems. George S. Knapp (Kansas) said Kansas would take the position that the Arkansas River Compact was not intended to interfere with any future devel- opment in Colorado which may be achieved through the medium of imported water. He said, however, that Kansas would be concerned with any proble;m arising from the mingling of the native and imported waters and would be specifically concerned with any program for the re-regulation of the use of native water. He said Kansas would review critically the functions and operation of a dam located at Pueblo which might have the effect of impound- ing waters which might otherwise fl0Tr into the pool of John Martin Reservoir at Caddoa. Chairman Kramer agreed that a vital problem ~xisted in the proposed re- regulation of the use of native waters of the Arkansas Fiver, and Rep. Stone reiterated that Colorado is obligated to ooserve all the provisions of the Arkansas River Compact, including the rights of Kansas under the Compact to share in the native water of the stream. It was pointed out that water users in Colorado downstream from John Martin Reservoir have the same interests as the water users farther down- stream in Kansas. Chairman Kramer submitted his comments on the proposed project report, as representative of the United States. His criticism was that the project report submitted a number of conclusions which have to be recognized at face value because definite substantiating evidence was not contained in the accompanying text of the report. He cited three examples: 1. The project report contains a blanket statement that the project con- f'o=s 'to. all proorisions of the Arkansas River Compact. Chairman Kramer said -- - -. _.-~~- -